Family Values - another liar caught

[Guthrie]

another rightwing pervert who runs on, Family Values, is caught talking into a live microphone

Conservative Republican Aseemblyman, Michael Duvall was caught on tape bragging about his sexual exploits.

According to KCAL television station, Duvall, who is the father of two and a conservative Republican who runs on the family vlaues platform, is having an affair with two women, both of whom are lobbyists.

Duvall, it has been learned, regularly brags about his sexual exploits to his colleagues who say it is hard to get away from him.

Apparently he couldn't resist bragging to a fellow assemblyman with a live microphone nearby and his words were caught on tape.

Here is part of what he said,

She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And? so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going ?up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!

So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah! Because you're such a bad girl!'

...

LINK

[naomiglover]

He is no different than many democrats as far as taking money from lobbyists or having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. But what separates democrats from republicans (especially this pig with the position he held), is that republicans try to sell themselves as the ones with family respect and values.

[lictor616]

another rightwing pervert who runs on, Family Values, is caught talking into a live microphone

...

LINK

conservatives or right wingers when they don,t cheat are called sterile closet homosexual bores.

I don't think that REAL rightwing politics needs necessarily a bunch of flannel shirt wearing faithful family guy's, I much prefer the brand of Berlusconi right wing platform... where people are expected to have sexual urges and "heaven forbid!" respond to their impulses.

I respect parties that don't shy away from celebrating female beauty: http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...sa%3DN%26um%3D1

Edited September 10, 2009 by lictor616

[Topaz]

IF one website I found a while ago is the truth, this is NOTHING that goes on among SOME Dems and Rep. in both houses and if it were to come out lots of them be would be embarrassed and in jail!

[lictor616]

IF one website I found a while ago is the truth, this is NOTHING that goes on among SOME Dems and Rep. in both houses and if it were to come out lots of them be would be embarrassed and in jail!

that's doubtlessly true..

[Sir Bandelot]

I much prefer the brand of Berlusconi right wing platform... where people are expected to have sexual urges and "heaven forbid!" respond to their impulses.

Right, and where goose-stepping little fascists strut around like peacocks.

Oh for the good old days, when men were mussolini

[Pliny]

He is no different than many democrats as far as taking money from lobbyists or having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. But what separates democrats from republicans (especially this pig with the position he held), is that republicans try to sell themselves as the ones with family respect and values.

Yes, I agree the left divests themselves of any personal values and follows the collective. They then don't have to worry about things like being called pigs.

I remember a former liberal President that had some problems in this respect and although he was called on the carpet for it by republicans who had some "family respect and values" (or at least pretended they did, right?) most liberals fawned over him and thought it was cute the way he wagged his finger and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" (if no one asks me about a different woman I'm safe). Later on there was even a liberal judge who was proclaiming that oral sex was not sex and the media carried that. A Great vindication for the President and I'm sure appeasing to Hillary. Oops! Sorry I didn't want to mention any names.

Strangely enough, through all of that I didn't hear any women's groups express any outrage either.

So going by your logic and from the historical reference above - I guess having no standards or values is best, is that right?

Edited September 10, 2009 by Pliny

[M.Dancer]

.... when men were mussolini

Say what you want about ol Benny M's manliness

He was well hung

[Pliny]

Right, and where goose-stepping little fascists strut around like peacocks.

Oh for the good old days, when men were mussolini

They are forgiven - Fascists are socialists, too.

[kimmy]

I don't think that REAL rightwing politics needs necessarily a bunch of flannel shirt wearing faithful family guy's, I much prefer the brand of Berlusconi right wing platform... where people are expected to have sexual urges and "heaven forbid!" respond to their impulses.

I don't see any philosophical reason why right wing ideology should be connected to puritan sexual morals and other "family values" positions that we often see from American conservative politicians.

In the United States, however, it seems as if organized evangelicals have considerable influence in the Republican party, and a politician who has them on his side has a considerable advantage over a rival.

I think that for a Republican, the calculus goes like this: if you go out and talk about God and family, you can get the religious lobby on your side, or at least avoid making enemies of them. A voter who finds such talk so annoying that you lose their support... probably isn't voting Republican anyway.

I suspect similar arguments might be made in regards to right-wing politics in Canada and maybe even the UK and Australia. I simply don't follow UK and Australian politics enough to even speculate. In Canada, the Red Deer bible-thumpers were supposedly at one point disproportionately influential within the Reform party, and some people would argue that this remains the case. I believe that as Reform spread and merged with the PC party, that influence has been watered down enormously, but it might still exist at the riding-association level.

-k

[naomiglover]

Yes, I agree the left divests themselves of any personal values and follows the collective. They then don't have to worry about things like being called pigs.

I remember a former liberal President that had some problems in this respect and although he was called on the carpet for it by republicans who had some "family respect and values" (or at least pretended they did, right?) most liberals fawned over him and thought it was cute the way he wagged his finger and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" (if no one asks me about a different woman I'm safe). Later on there was even a liberal judge who was proclaiming that oral sex was not sex and the media carried that. A Great vindication for the President and I'm sure appeasing to Hillary. Oops! Sorry I didn't want to mention any names.

Strangely enough, through all of that I didn't hear any women's groups express any outrage either.

So going by your logic and from the historical reference above - I guess having no standards or values is best, is that right?

Not lying about having standards and values is better than lying about it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Left-wing or right-wing, there's a lot of sex-thristy men out there who cheat on their significant others. Men are men, and unfortunately a % of them are scum. (this is coming from a man, so i know )

[M.Dancer]

Men are men, and unfortunately a % of them are scum. (this is coming from a man, so i know )

I'm a man

I can change

If I have to

I guess

[BubberMiley]

There's nothing worse than having to sit next to a fat old man describing how he's left someone all drippy. It was very humane of them to at least digitize out the face of the poor sap who had to listen to that.

[Oleg Bach]

Men should be allowed to spread their oats. Woman must be loyal ...thats the way it should be...and was at one time - family values are kept by men that have families and it does not matter how many or how many woman - now that is civilized.

[kimmy]

Men should be allowed to spread their oats. Woman must be loyal ...thats the way it should be...and was at one time - family values are kept by men that have families and it does not matter how many or how many woman - now that is civilized.

Bach family outings must be a whole lot of fun!

-k

[Pliny]

Not lying about having standards and values is better than lying about it.

How about living in a society that has standards and not observing them plus lying? As in the example of Mr. Clinton.

Standards and values are generally agreed upon by individuals in a society. There is no guarantee they will not be violated. If they are not upheld then the society is history. The left seems to be constantly eroding those values and you think it's ok as long as they don't lie about it. Is that correct?

[wyly]

How about living in a society that has standards and not observing them plus lying? As in the example of Mr. Clinton.

Standards and values are generally agreed upon by individuals in a society. There is no guarantee they will not be violated. If they are not upheld then the society is history. The left seems to be constantly eroding those values and you think it's ok as long as they don't lie about it. Is that correct?

that works for me lying to protect your marriage is not the same level as hypocrasy...

I don't care what someone/politicians does in their private sex life as long as it involves constenting adults...but when someone puts themselves on a pedastal of virtue and then proceed to preach morality at others telling how to behave while they do the opposite is really pathetic...

[ToadBrother]

that works for me lying to protect your marriage is not the same level as hypocrasy...

I don't care what someone/politicians does in their private sex life as long as it involves constenting adults...but when someone puts themselves on a pedastal of virtue and then proceed to preach morality at others telling how to behave while they do the opposite is really pathetic...

And that's the key difference. It's not so much that we often judge public figures by our own standards (though we do), but rather we often judge them by the standards they claim to follow. So when you have Bill Clinton fingered for doing naughty things, the vast bulk of Americans just sort of shrugged, because everyone knew the guy was randy and that he was a serial womanizer. However, when Gingrich reveals that while he was trying to sacrifice Clinton the altar of Family Values, he was in fact "stepping Out" too, and people were outraged.

Ultimately, it's hypocrisy that probably pisses people off the most. When you have someone like Ted Haggard, this fag-hating cross carrying uber-Evangelical outed as a homosexual, it's not only about him failing his own value system, but about the fact that he spent all this time denigrating and condemning a group that he was in fact secretly a member of.

[Pliny]

that works for me lying to protect your marriage is not the same level as hypocrasy...

I don't care what someone/politicians does in their private sex life as long as it involves constenting adults...but when someone puts themselves on a pedastal of virtue and then proceed to preach morality at others telling how to behave while they do the opposite is really pathetic...

It seems that politicians on the left do try and hide just as much as politicians on the right about their sex lives at work. I guess the embarrassment on the left though is they are having sex on the taxpayers dime and perhaps abusing their status and position to gain sexual favours. At least they didn't preach morality.

I would amend your statement that what consenting adults do in their private sex lives is their own business but it has to be their "Private" sex lives, meaning not using and abusing one's status or position.

Whatever position one holds, especially a position of the public trust, if one uses that position for personal favour or gain it is hypocritical. It isn't about the sex unless someone claims it is about the sex, which the left claims it is always about regarding the right. Never fear because Paragons of virtue necessarily suffer their fall from grace. The left seems to miss the actual abuses in their fervor to condemn the right for any kind of fall from the right's very own set of standards and morality.

[Pliny]

I have been ruminating on this for awhile wondering what it is that is so irksome about it. The subject is hypocrisy.

Certainly, the Michael Duvall's and Jim Baker's and Haggard's of the right are hypocrites. But here's the problem with the left. Their "I don't care" and "live and let live" and "I am not going to impose my values on someone else" attitude is lost when it comes to the failure of the right to live up to their own set of values. The left grants a person the right to live their own life the way they feel they should, demanding only that same consideration in return, and then hypocritically scorn and chide them when that person violates the standards they have set or adopted for themselves. They actually have no position to do so. Basically, the left feels that the rights set of standards and values are wrong. Isn't that in itself hypocritical?

It is very hard to peg the left on standards and values because they claim they have none but they certainly find it easy to notice hypocrisy in others. I will use the examples of the Haggard's and the Duvall's and the Baker's and their self righteous failures, their hypocritical pointing of fingers and condemnation of the sinners and of those eroding family values, to illustrate that those who are so critically claiming hypocrisy are most probably guilty of it themselves.

[ToadBrother]

I have been ruminating on this for awhile wondering what it is that is so irksome about it. The subject is hypocrisy.

Certainly, the Michael Duvall's and Jim Baker's and Haggard's of the right are hypocrites. But here's the problem with the left. Their "I don't care" and "live and let live" and "I am not going to impose my values on someone else" attitude is lost when it comes to the failure of the right to live up to their own set of values. The left grants a person the right to live their own life the way they feel they should, demanding only that same consideration in return, and then hypocritically scorn and chide them when that person violates the standards they have set or adopted for themselves. They actually have no position to do so. Basically, the left feels that the rights set of standards and values are wrong. Isn't that in itself hypocritical?

It is very hard to peg the left on standards and values because they claim they have none but they certainly find it easy to notice hypocrisy in others. I will use the examples of the Haggard's and the Duvall's and the Baker's and their self righteous failures, their hypocritical pointing of fingers and condemnation of the sinners and of those eroding family values, to illustrate that those who are so critically claiming hypocrisy are most probably guilty of it themselves.

I think it's a mistake to claim that any particular behavior is "Left" or "Right" or that any kind of hypocrisy is more to be found on one side of the political spectrum or another. Neither Right nor Left are monolithic homogeneous entities.

Some men are womanizers... stop. Some men are gay... stop. Most of us fail to live up to the ideals we set for ourselves, or the expectations that others have for us... stop.

Clinton could get away with being a randy sex hound because everyone knew he was a randy sex hound. Gingrich and the Moral Majority decided the Lewinsky Affair THE issue, and in the process basically wasted millions of tax dollars prosecuting a guy for something that most Americans seemed little interested in, save in a tabloid sort of way. Clinton's nature, his obsession with women, these were all known. He had been elected twice despite that, so it really came down to an issue of a man many Americans felt was doing a good job who had some personal issues.

Whenever a politician is caught in an indiscretion, his opponents (even if they are doing precisely the same thing) will rail against him. It's hypocritical, to be sure, but politics of all stripes seems to force its adherents into situations of this kind. It's not Left or Right, it's just human nature and the nature of power.

[Pliny]

I think it's a mistake to claim that any particular behavior is "Left" or "Right" or that any kind of hypocrisy is more to be found on one side of the political spectrum or another. Neither Right nor Left are monolithic homogeneous entities.

Left and right are general political terms that most understand in conversation today and I use them in that context. They are confusing in themselves because both at the centre and at the extremes of that political spectrum left and right blur into each other. I do wish they would disappear and we could talk simply about how much engineering of society the State should be involved in. The right and left both have their agendas for government - and big government on both sides.

Some men are womanizers... stop. Some men are gay... stop. Most of us fail to live up to the ideals we set for ourselves, or the expectations that others have for us... stop.

True. A good reason why we shouldn't be laughing at the folly of our fellow man.

Clinton could get away with being a randy sex hound because everyone knew he was a randy sex hound. Gingrich and the Moral Majority decided the Lewinsky Affair THE issue, and in the process basically wasted millions of tax dollars prosecuting a guy for something that most Americans seemed little interested in, save in a tabloid sort of way. Clinton's nature, his obsession with women, these were all known. He had been elected twice despite that, so it really came down to an issue of a man many Americans felt was doing a good job who had some personal issues.

I am not a Liberal except in the classical sense but I didn't mind Clinton as President. He enacted some Liberal legislation I found objectionable but did very little that stuck in my craw. Hillary was more of a pain than Bill. Bill was a media darling as well so the media didn't carry the story as much as it would have with someone of less favour.

Whenever a politician is caught in an indiscretion, his opponents (even if they are doing precisely the same thing) will rail against him. It's hypocritical, to be sure, but politics of all stripes seems to force its adherents into situations of this kind. It's not Left or Right, it's just human nature and the nature of power.

Power corrupts. But it is a left-right issue precisely because they divide themselves into camps that can seize the power. If they both had the interests of the nation in mind and understood that the power of government should be limited if the reason being is simply or singularly to avoid corruption.

[lictor616]

I don't see any philosophical reason why right wing ideology should be connected to puritan sexual morals and other "family values" positions that we often see from American conservative politicians.

In the United States, however, it seems as if organized evangelicals have considerable influence in the Republican party, and a politician who has them on his side has a considerable advantage over a rival.

I think that for a Republican, the calculus goes like this: if you go out and talk about God and family, you can get the religious lobby on your side, or at least avoid making enemies of them. A voter who finds such talk so annoying that you lose their support... probably isn't voting Republican anyway.

I suspect similar arguments might be made in regards to right-wing politics in Canada and maybe even the UK and Australia. I simply don't follow UK and Australian politics enough to even speculate. In Canada, the Red Deer bible-thumpers were supposedly at one point disproportionately influential within the Reform party, and some people would argue that this remains the case. I believe that as Reform spread and merged with the PC party, that influence has been watered down enormously, but it might still exist at the riding-association level.

-k

The so called "conservative movement," i.e. the republicans in the US we are told "won" when the old spaghetti western actor Reagan was permitted to continue his acting in the White house to consummate the bankruptcy of the United States while taxing his bovine serfs to give every Israeli family in the "Holy Land" $6000 every year...

And their successors (the Bushies) who meddled with the domestic affairs of every nation on the globe that has not yet become a howling wilderness of Communist savages, created a legal basis for afflicting on Americans the presence of 20 million illegal immigrants, i.e. for practical purposes: anthropoid drips from south america in preparation for "Integration" and "Amnesty", were said to be important to the economy because they did the work that "whites" wouldn't... when alas reality is that as the center of Immigration Studies calculates that the average Mexican immigrant alone will collect $55,200 more in government services during his lifetime than he will pay in taxes. (http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/toc.html) thus inflicting incalculable economical harm to the US.

Back in the golden days of conservatism... late 40's 50's, many a patriotic organization and anti-Communists styled themselves, quite rationally then, "Conservatives", since their purpose was to conserve what was left of the American Republic..

The Conservatives were faced with a choice between two widely diverging paths. They could base their opposition to the Communism and a global plantation of misery on sound scientific grounds, recognizing scientific and above all biological reality and following the lead of such rational and learned men as Lothrop Stoddard, Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot and Madison Grant .

Alternately, they could be taken in by the Bolsheviks, Liberal and crypto communist's pretense of atheism and decide to base their opposition to Communism on Jesus Jargon and an etiolated and begrimed religion called Christianity, following in the footsteps of Harold Lindsell, Millard Erickson, Bernhard Ramm, and other fugitives from reality.... being careful to hide from their feckless customers the proletarian communism implicit in primitive Christianity, and the silly Christan social gospels implicit in communism (i.e. "all men are created equal".. "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth".... etc)

The Conservatives chose their route... and they have nowhere to go now... On their declining path they surrendered every ideal they had hoped to retain.

Republicans are self-doomed, they are trapped in a cage they built themselves. They are now obsolete... they might as well just barricade themselves in their churches and read the opiate nonsense from their favorite boob book: the bible, even if so many of them never took the time to actually read it... They actually work against the interests of their largest party demographic: Heterosexual Whites.... The only way republicans can ever regain power is (like bush) to try to "out-democrat" the democrats!

We need not pay attention to them anymore.... they are irrelevant to reality.

Edited September 16, 2009 by lictor616

[naomiglover]

How about living in a society that has standards and not observing them plus lying? As in the example of Mr. Clinton.

Standards and values are generally agreed upon by individuals in a society. There is no guarantee they will not be violated. If they are not upheld then the society is history. The left seems to be constantly eroding those values and you think it's ok as long as they don't lie about it. Is that correct?

Did I say it's okay? I did not.

I said there is a big difference between Clinton getting a blow job because he wants a blow job than a politician who is sleeping with lobbyists and in return, most likely, being lobbied into making decisions that effects the country. This politician happens to be part of the Family Values committee which makes it even worse.

Edited September 16, 2009 by naomiglover